Ack!
I found an error in the time interval calculations... which reduces the
dV values given above by about half... which makes the effect even
*less*!
Provided of course, that I didn't make any other mistakes...
A community for cyclists, gear, training and racing.
Cycling Equipment · Public discussion
Thread details
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
Ack!
I found an error in the time interval calculations... which reduces the
dV values given above by about half... which makes the effect even
*less*!
Provided of course, that I didn't make any other mistakes...
"Ron Ruff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Ack!
I found an error in the time interval calculations... which reduces
the
dV values given above by about half... which makes the effect even
*less*!Provided of course, that I didn't make any other mistakes...
I agree, Aero is still the biggest factor. Suppose we have two cyclists
climbing at an average speed of 10mph; one cyclist's speed is a constant
10mph (he/she has a perfect 360 degreee power application) and the other
fluctuates from 6 to 14mph.
The power requirement for speed fluctuation will be higher (all other
things being equal) due to aerodynamic effect. If the power required to
overcome drag at a constant 10mph is 20 watts, for a 6 to 14 mph
fluctuation it will vary from 4.3 to 54.9 watts and will be closer to 30
watts average.
For a 500 watt output, this is a 2% increase at the same average speed.
Phil H
Active in the last 60 minutes
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.